Mercury a Concern as it Remains in Vaccines

May 18th, 2011 by admin No comments »

You may or may not like, or know of, Tim Bolen.  This aside he is a relentless expositor of important issues in health care today.  And he should be applauded for the most part in his ongoing expose of the fraudulent actions of the over-relied upon quackbuster operation.  You know, Stephen Barrett’s propaganda (false flag) fiasco relied on by too many journalists.

To the ire of many Bolen exposes the issues of mercury remaining in vaccines through the eyes and research of now attacked-by-MSM pundits -

The Attack on Mark and David Geier…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen

Saturday, May 21st,  2011

An attorney friend of mine, Bob Reeves, a mainstay in the mercury in health care wars, called me last April 28th, 2011 and asked me to look into some strange occurrences regarding Mark Geier MD and his son David Geier.  As everyone knows, the Geiers are severe critics of the fact that Thimerosal (mercury – deadly toxic to humans) has NOT, despite false claims and misrepresentations from the vaccine industry, been removed from vaccines.

Bob asked me, as a Crisis Management Consultant, to analyze the situation and give him, and the Geiers, my Opinion and make some Recommendations.  This, below, is the Public Version.  The Private Version is much grittier.

Who are these Geier guys?

In short, they are the nemesis of the world-wide vaccine industry.

(1)  Last January 27th, 28th, 29th, 2011 the Geiers, along with their colleague Lisa Sykes attended, by invitation as anofficial NGO, the United Nations Environment Programme - Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on Mercury (INC2).  There, they officially presented, to the shocked international delegates, convincing evidence that mercury in vaccines, HAS NOT actually been removed, and represents a serious threat to the people of Planet Earth.  The Geiers have since been invited to present again at the next conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in October, 2011.

(2)  The Geiers have been a mainstay in the State legislative actions banning Thimerosal in vaccines across the US, and the world. More than half of the States are involved in Thimerosal ban legislation.  Already, New York, Delaware, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, California, and Washington state have legislated those bans.

(3)  The Geiers, through their non-profit corporation CoMeD recently sued the FDA for, as attorney Bob Reeves say”The failure of the FDA to follow their own regulations and require testing for the safety of vaccines.”

(4)  Press Releases – the Geiers, through their organizations, have issued Press Releases documenting mercury in vaccine issues.  There are five of them.  You can read them by clicking on each one:  One, Two, Three, Four, Five.

(5)  Their peer reviewed studies, over a hundred, cover a broad range of Thimerosal caused issues including two extremely shocking revelations:  (a)  Thimerosal in vaccines is 300 times more toxic to the human brain than the bacteria in the vaccines it is designed to destroy, (b)  there is a Thimerosal substitute that is twenty times more destructive to bacteria and it has NO affect on the human brain.  You can find many of these published papers here.

(6)  Mark Geier MD testifies in Vaccine Court on behalf of brain damaged children. Article.

(7)  Both Geiers testified to the IOM on the problems of Thimerosal in vaccines.  Testimony.

(8)  Both Geiers have been active attempting to force the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) to make vaccine adverse reaction data available to the public.  The CDC will NOT let anyone see that data.  Do you wonder why? Link.

(9)   David Geier was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the Maryland Commission on Autism, and as such, has significantly effected the quality of treatment recommendations offered to Autistic children in the State of Maryland.

(10)   Mark and David Geier, because of their research into the question ”Why do boys get Autism at a rate higher than girls,” found that Thimerosal interacts with testosterone, increasing it in children, causing ”precocious puberty.”  They then found that the use of the drug Lupron reduces those effects, and significantly reduces incidents of violence, and acting-out, in Autistic children, sometimes almost removing Autistic behavior.

(11)  The Geiers set up, with every health insurance company in the US, pre-approved protocols, using Labcorptesting, for the use of Lupron, and the payment for that testing and that drug, directly to the lab and pharmacies on a case-by-case basis.

The Geiers, because of their activities, are a MAJOR thorn in the side of the vaccine industry.

Sunscreen Safety at Issue

May 14th, 2011 by admin No comments »

Sunscreens have been around since the 1940s, and it is well documented that they prevent painful sunburns when used according to directions. But in a January 2011 analysis of the five existing studies looking at how effective sunscreens are at preventing melanoma and other forms of skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma), the USPSTF concluded that “sunscreen use has no clear protective or harmful effect on the risk for melanoma.” They also found few studies showing that sunscreens can prevent basal cell carcinoma, the least severe and most common form of skin cancer, but did find strong evidence that sunscreens prevent squamous cell carcinoma, a harmful but often treatable form of the disease.

However, a study published two months after the USPSTF’s analysis was conducted came to the conclusion that sunscreens do prevent melanoma, and many in the public health field felt that it was the most concrete evidence to date that sunscreens are effective. “This is good evidence that sunscreens prevent melanoma, and people should no longer be saying a link has not been shown,” says Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and nursing and Director for the Center for Health Behavior Research at the University of Pennsylvania Schools of Medicine and Nursing. The study, conducted over a 10-year period in Queensland, Australia, followed 1,621 adults who were assigned to two groups: one that applied sunscreen daily and one that applied sunscreen intermittently as the individuals saw fit. A total of 33 melanoma cases arose in the study population, 22 in the intermittent sunscreen users and just 11 in the daily sunscreen users.

Glanz, who also sits on the U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services (a partner organization to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) says that studies like this one, randomized, controlled trials, are the strongest types of academic studies, and because they’re expensive, they aren’t conducted very often. “This is the best study we’re ever going to get,” she says, “and I think it shows that it’s really time to lay the question to rest.”

Other physicians aren’t so convinced. Marianne Berwick, PhD, MPH, professor, chief of the Division of Biostatistics and associate director of population sciences at the University of New Mexico Cancer Center, had issues with the Queensland study, noting that the researchers found lower rates of invasive melanoma, but not preinvasive melanoma. “I would have expected if sunscreens prevent melanoma, they would have prevented both types, but it didn’t, and we shouldn’t ignore that,” she says.

Berwick, a frequent critic of sunscreen companies, conducted her own analysis of sunscreen and cancer literature and published it in the February 2011 issue of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. In her paper, she concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to suggest that sunscreen use alone is adequate protection against UV radiation.” Part of the reason may be the way people actually use the products in the real world. Berwick points to studies showing that people who use sunscreen spend more time out in the sun without reapplying it properly, and that they apply less of it than they should, upping their exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Furthermore, she adds, most cancers are caused by UVA radiation, rays that sunscreens have only recently been formulated to protect against. And there are no adequate measurements to determine how much UVA is being blocked by a particular sunscreen; SPF measurements on sunscreens only indicate protection against UVB rays, which are responsible for sunburns. Though sunburns are an indication of too much sun exposure, she adds, there’s no conclusive evidence that sunburns cause cancer